Usually it's that nobody has ever taken the time to point out to them why it's not great. Some of it should have perhaps been obvious (Improved Righteous Fury, for example) but I can see how someone might not realise why Glyph of Consecration is sub-optimal.

When we have someone apply with poor glyph choices or spec, I usually ask them questions about it to test their understanding of things rather than point out their errors.

For example, I'd probably ask something like "I see you've not taken any points in Improved Righteous Fury, can you explain why you feel this is best for you?" More often than not they just say "lol i just thought i didnt need it" but very occasionally they'll surprise you and tell you "ah, I was actually going to spec a different way but was going to wait for feedback on what you might need as a guild first" and then go on to explain their proposed new spec very well.

Id guess from this spec, he is either A) really dumb or B) trying to come up with a spec for heroics/10 mans. This spec seems to be mostly geared for keeping his mana up, glyph of consecrate causes lots of CD annoyances but it does save a bunch of mana. If I had a second spec just for 10 mans or heroics it would probably be similar ish to this guys

At least it looks like he was going in the right direction. It's not like those 0/71/0 builds where they obviously are just picking protection talents because they're in in the protection tree and that is what protection paladins do.

I did run into a guy once who thought the attack speed reduction from JotJ didn't make a difference.

If he had 3/3 RF it would be an ok spec.What is he trying to do with it?From the lack of 3/3 RF it looks like a fun 1h and shield dps and tanking spec (using DS for damage redirection and thus extra mana gain).I used worse tanking spec to gain some damage while not tanking back when there was no second spec.

-> Can't judge weird specs without speaking to the one who made and uses it.